July 28, 2012
Race, IQ, and Wealth: What the Facts Tell Us About a Taboo Subject
Ron Unz in The American Conservative (via Brainiac):
[A]n objective review of the Lynn/Vanhanen data almost completely discredits the Lynn/Vanhanen “Strong IQ Hypothesis” ["namely that IQ accurately reflects intelligence, that IQ is overwhelmingly determined by genetics, and that IQ is subject to little or no significant cultural or economic influence"]. If so many genetically-indistinguishable European populations—of roughly similar cultural and historical background and without severe nutritional difficulties—can display such huge variances in tested IQ across different decades and locations, we should be extremely cautious about assuming that other ethnic IQ differences are innate rather than environmental, especially since these may involve populations separated by far wider cultural or nutritional gaps.
We cannot rule out the possibility that different European peoples might have relatively small differences in innate intelligence or IQ—after all, these populations often differ in height and numerous other phenotypic traits. But this residual genetic element would explain merely a small fraction of the huge 10–15 point IQ disparities discussed above. Such a view might be characterized as the “Weak IQ Hypothesis”: huge IQ differences between large populations may be overwhelmingly due to cultural or socio-economic factors, but a residual component might indeed be genetic in origin.
We are now faced with a mystery arguably greater than that of IQ itself. Given the powerful ammunition that Lynn and Vanhanen have provided to those opposing their own “Strong IQ Hypothesis,” we must wonder why this has never attracted the attention of either of the warring camps in the endless, bitter IQ dispute, despite their alleged familiarity with the work of these two prominent scholars. In effect, I would suggest that the heralded 300-page work by Lynn and Vanhanen constituted a game-ending own-goal against their IQ-determinist side, but that neither of the competing ideological teams ever noticed.
Posted by Robin Varghese at 08:35 PM | Permalink
Comments
There's a typo above- Mr Unz' first name is Ron, not Roy.
Posted by: Acilius | Jul 28, 2012 8:47:44 PM
While concepts such as "emotional intelligence" and "multiple intelligences" have their uses, a century of psychometric evidence has been augmented over the last decade by a growing body of neuroscientific evidence.
Like it or not, the general intelligence factor (also known as 'g') exists, is grounded in the architecture and neural functioning of the brain, and is the raw material for academic performance. If you do not have a lot of 'g' when you enter kindergarten, you are never going to have a lot of it. No change in the educational system will change that hard fact. That says nothing about the quality of the lives that should be open to everyone across the range of ability. I am among the most emphatic of those who think that the importance of IQ in living a good life is vastly overrated.
My point is just this: It is true that many social and economic problems are disproportionately found among people with little education, but the culprit for their educational deficit is often low intelligence. Refusing to come to grips with that reality has produced policies that have been ineffectual at best and damaging at worst.
A person's intellectual capability remains stable after childhood. There is very little individuals can do in their adolescence and adulthood to increase their intelligence. One cannot increase one's intelligence by studying, by reading books, by receiving education, or by going to better schools. There is a strong positive association between intelligence and education across individuals, not because further education increases one's intelligence, but because more intelligent individuals receive more education. Education allows you to quote Shakespeare at will and gives you better understanding of string theory, but it does not alter your intelligence.
By the time you are 10 or 11, your intelligence is more or less set for the rest of your life, and it's largely up to your genes. Of course there are a lot of factors that can lower one's intelligence below what your genes alone would have produced (malnutrition, ill health, head trauma, total sensory isolation, etc.), but there are virtually no factors that will raise your intelligence above what your genes alone would have produced.
Posted by: Carol | Jul 28, 2012 9:27:37 PM
@Carol: Inasmuch as your assertions are exactly those challenged by Unz's analysis, it would seem to be better for you to point out to us the flaws in Unz's analysis rather than just restating the assertions.
Posted by: Ken Pidcock | Jul 28, 2012 11:05:44 PM
Oh God! Not race and IQ again. Wait. There's something different: wealth is added.
[Do over] Oh God! Not race, IQ, and wealth again.
"We are now faced with a mystery arguably greater than that of IQ itself. Given the powerful ammunition that Lynn and Vanhanen have provided to those opposing their own “Strong IQ Hypothesis,” we must wonder why this has never attracted the attention of either of the warring camps in the endless, bitter IQ dispute, despite their alleged familiarity with the work of these two prominent scholars."
Mystery solved. Wonder no more. The answer to the mystery is within the quoted text: "...the warring camps in the endless, bitter IQ dispute...".
Posted by: Norman Costa | Jul 28, 2012 11:27:49 PM
I cannot be right. It seems the article is telling us that being paler, richer, and more highly placed in society can pinch-hit for being intelligent any day of the week. Well, I never...
It must follow, then, that darker persons of low rank and very low income are quite often judged to be stupid. Gonna hafta think this through.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Jul 29, 2012 12:44:12 AM
An observation:It seems that the wealth is a product of IQ. The question what kind of IQ; in our society for sure a person that has the IQ/gift for philosophy or art will earn less money than a person with the IQ/gift for technology and mathematics. To remark also that the "qualities" that earn us money and wages are changing in history and the literary and philosophy exams that were testing the Middle Age Chinese for a public job today will be replaced by tests/diplomas in economy and technology.
Even Binet and Simon started the IQ test being focused on verbal abilities, showing that at at the start of XXc the vocabulary and the capacity of expression were considered the most important qualities of intelligence and not the "problem solving" and ability to reason.
The "real" wealth of the financial elite is determined by other qualities and those gifts are not discovered by IQ test.
Posted by: mirel | Jul 29, 2012 4:54:28 AM
We all have limited time available for Internet browsing. If we see a headline with two links -- one to read an article about the headlined topic, and one to submit a comment about the article -- ideally, we'd like to be able to click on both of them.
But if you must choose just one due to time constraints, I highly recommend choosing the article over the comment. I know that choosing to remain silent comes at a psychological cost, but you do stand a chance of learning something, and your peers will be better off too.
Posted by: bingobangoboy | Jul 29, 2012 10:58:38 AM
Post a comment